Obama TODAY! Still Swiping at Edwards [While Blowing Donor Money on Numerous Super Bowl Ads In 24 States]

I wonder what that ad buy costs. I hope there aren’t a lot of struggling people out there pinching pennies and sending him donations … this is a wasteful expenditure, imho, but what do I know.

Obama can’t win with you guys–he avoids using a possible (and likely) nominee as a comparison by using someone who will not be nominated as you f*bomb him. I think his point was his answer was an honest answer to the question, while Clinton and Edwards using the typical (Bush does it all the time) “my weakness is actually one of my BEST traits” line. WOW. I know you said you weren’t looking for a job, but at this rate you’re coming close to the Cheney-Lieberman line “No thanks to the government”.

Obama can’t lose with you guys. You come up with every lame excuse ever dreamed up to defend him.

“avoids” using a “possible nominee” Give me a f–king break.

Obama attacks Hillary all the time in his stump speeches. His ads attack her. He attacks her in interviews. But he’s going to spare her in this instance, and instead go after Edwards?

What naive “hope” Mr. Rogers-type planet do you live on anyway?

Preach it, Susan! I’m getting so sick and tired of Obamazoids jumping out of the woodwork all the time to explain something Obama said and tell us “what he really meant.” If he really meant that, then why the hell didn’t he just say it???? He is always telling us how great he is at communicating and reaching out to people. And yet, everyone is always having to explain what he means because he is so good at stepping in it. If he were such a great communicator, we would all know exactly what he meant and bots wouldn’t have to be out prowling the internet all the time correcting his latest gaffe.

Obama’s an idiot. I honestly don’t see what anybody likes about this pompous ass. He reminds me exactly of John Kerry. Has he ever even held a fulltime ob before becoming President? If so, I can’t see it.

well, i’m glad he’s getting at least a glimmering of what the job of president entails. there’s some of that “bureaucracy” stuff in there somewhere, according to his revised a position.

maybe that’s his problem as senator- nobody ever gave him a job description.

Did anyone read the 8 part series The Chicago Tribune ran on Obama: Barak Obama: The Making of a Candidate. The series ran from March 25, 07 thru June 12, 07. I found it fascinating and a bit creepy. Some on Chicago style politics. All 8 parts on on the web at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-life-storygallery,0,7365.storygallery.

FYI:Delete the period at end. Thanks Marjorie.

Meanwhile, Hillary got Richardson’s endorsement, which should help with more than a few Hispanics. The lefty blogs, which I will be frequenting much less after all this is over, are slow to report it.

Richardson’s endorsement..the echo chamber doesn’t report Richardson’s endorsement yet except to say Bill & Bill are watching the game in NM. where you hear that?

“the world as it is is not the world as it should be.”

That depends on what “is is” ?

Who does these ads? doesn’t any one read the copy?

Is this comment related to your later comment re: people not reading copy?
Thank you for being attentive.

no (I dink at typing) the link you posted had a period in it; I got the 404.

And the “is is” is from the Obama ad. I am sure they have the keepler elves with the emo-dials watching the O ads, but not reading his copy apparently.

NPR has it.

Mark Halperin at Time doesn’t.

Memeorandum doesn’t.

DUNNO!

P.S. I’m sorry but I’m bored by the Super Bowl.

Come on, Teaky! It’s how it makes you FEEEEEEL!

No source is given for the statement. wait n C

Another one. Obamazoid!

You guys are desperate.

Very good point. It’s odd that Halperin wouldn’t have it — he usually has all that stuff up in a heartbeat.

There is a lot of hype and messianic rhetoric that stirs up the young and restless. Did I say ruthless?

He is actually a fake with a terrible resume that hides his greedy dealings, and reflects very poor judgement in Chicago with Tony Rezko. Rezko for 17 years was Obama’s donor and patron collecting hundreds of thousands in donations for both State and US Senate elections.

Press is giving him a pass, but his background has to come out if he is nominee.

His double dealing sweetheart real estate deal with Rezko and wife are all in stories in Chicago Sun Times.

For all the backstory go to. http://www.suntimes.com and access Obama Archives. Tim Novak’s investigative reporting team have quite a bit on this and many deals that show how Obama betrayed the poorest tenants in South Ward. Phony rehabs with govt subsidies that were never rehabbed…all in Obama’s district…and patron Tony Rezko was the “developer”.

I have no idea why they’ve gotten away with this so far.

Obama is a conceited ass with lots of hubris. He’s besotted with his ability to appeal to naive students and some Oprah wannabes and any thing else he attracts.

Getting the old guard of Teddy/Kerry is hardly the future.

He’s a good communicator who combines religious fervor with smoke and hope, and he’s getting away with a pile of s**t. He’s very slick, and says nothing of substance.

No one has vetted this guy and surprises ahead when they do.

Hey, speaking of how one feels…

I posted this earlier at Daily Kos, amidst posts by hundreds of exultant and, frankly, deliriously exuberant fans of Senator Obama, celebrating the endorsement offered by Maria Shriver, as she appeared alongside Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey:

(snip)

You people…

…are out of control. This is the same sort of euphoria that led to the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California.

As a Democrat, am I excited that our choice will almost assuredly come down to one of a woman or a black American? Of course I am. But, my observations are tempered by the tragic reality is that this is not the right woman, nor the right black American.

The rock start like euphoria surrounding Senator Obama is terrifying. The unquestioned allegiance among supporters of Senator Clinton is no less frightening.

For goodness sake, look for substance. It’s not there with Senator Obama: it’s sadly all ephemeral, feel-good, empty talk. And the substance offered by the opposition camp? Cloaking a dark and foreboding ‘mystery’ still largely behind the curtain. The more I listen to and look at Senator Clinton, the less I am inclined to pull the lever for her either. Which is actually scarier? What you don’t understand about one candidate, or what you do understand about the other?

While the pronouncements of Michelle Obama, Maria Shriver and Oprah Winfrey are indeed exciting, let’s please remember that none of them will occupy the White House as President in early 2009. Apparently either Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or Senator McCain will.

Given that Senator McCain is clearly the least reasonable and desirable choice, I am left to wonder of the remaining two, who is the best choice. Is neither one of the choices? I wish…

And, that from a supporter of Senator McGovern, Governor Dean and Senator Edwards. I promised Governor Dean that I would vote for the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, and so I will. But, not happily. I feel as disenfranchised now as I ever have at any point in nearly 40 years. I have already given up my position as a precinct captain, stopped contributing to any candidate other then Senators Edwards and Dodd, and am seriously contemplating registering as an independent.

And, when the rest of you are eventually slapped by reality, I fear you will too. Sorry to rain on the parade, but it’s just the way I—and so many others I know—feel about the emerging situation. For our sake and yours, I hope that my gloomy outlook is dead wrong. But, I don’t think so…

(snip)

I’ve alluded to this here, before. Obviously, I am not positive on the outcome this cycle. If fact, I am sufficiently dejected and negative enought that I don’t know that another face-to-face conversation with Governor Dean would pull be back into the fold at the moment.

I am used to political adoration. After all, I saw some degree of it in the campaign efforts of Senator McGovern, Attorney General Kennedy, Senator McCarthy and others. But, I have never witnessed such blind devotion to a candidate as I have seen demonstrated in this cycle, to Senator Obama. It’s mind boggling, and deeply disturbing. We are supposed to be electing an individual human being, not a demi-god. What more can I really say?

Does this mean that Obama is not counting on an Edwards endorsement?

I’ve been wondering how I, as an Edwards supporter, would feel if he came out for Obama, but I just can’t imagine that after that dreadful health care mailer and with the NYT story on Obama’s ties to Exelon – and now this – Edwards could maintain any credibility with an Obama endorsement.

For what it’s worth, here is a link to a Rick Perlstein piece in today’s WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102827.html

Here is part that rang true for me, but the whole thing is worth reading, both for the historical perspective as for the conclusion:

A President Obama could no more magically transcend America’s ’60s-born divisions than McCarthy, Kennedy, Nixon or McGovern could, for the simple reason that our society is defined as much by its arguments as by its agreements. Over the meaning of “family,” on sexual morality, on questions of race and gender and war and peace and order and disorder and North and South and a dozen other areas, we remain divided in ways that first arose after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. What Andrew Sullivan dismisses as “the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation” do not separate us from our “actual problems”; they define us, as much as the Great War defined France in the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and beyond. Pretending otherwise simply isn’t healthy. It’s repression — the kind of thing that shrinks say causes neurosis.

[Well, at least the Giants won the Super Bowl...]

Susan–you are so far wrong it’s not even funny. Obama can lose with “us” guys, if others like me like and respect Hillary, and would vote for her in a heartbeart. Even my annoyance at the loss of of such as great page as No Quarter which seems to have evolved into a talking point page for Clinton has not convinced me to support Obama over Clinton.

I am a fifty-something professional person with a strong historical background, especially presidential history. I doubt I’m naive in the sense you mean.

In fact you are so naive and/or misguided that you think someone asking for even a semblance of balance must be an Obama supporter.

Please look in the mirror–hopefully you’ll see that you are becoming as bombastic and blinded as O’Reilly or Hannity.

And BTW, did I say Obama didn’t attack Hillary-NO! Or in your words–fuck no. Are you suggesting that Clinton or Edwards never attacked Obama?

Just a basic question. Didn’t Obama state that he made an ad-buy during the Florida Primary and they showed in Florida because hecould not prevent them because they had to be shown nationally. Yet, come Super Bowl ad-buys, he is able to just have the ads play in ONLY the 22 states that have primaries on Tues. Seems as if Barack Obama is the only candidate who violated the “NO CAMPAIGNING IN FLORIDA” edict from the Democratic Party. Yet he has lied and attacks Hillary of breaking the pledge. She merely met with supporters AFTER the primary. WHo is the hypocrit and the one who broke the rules????

ok maybe i’m pole vaulting over mouse turds here but buying ad time on faux doesnt impress me …
dont tell me it doesnt count becuase it is faux entertainment and not faux news … it is all the same in my mind.

“Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision…”

This reminds me of the movie Parenthood, where the Tom Hulce character is asked by his brothers about his claimed interest in hydroponics, and then answers, “…I don’t know, I’m the IDEA man”

As for Obama accusing Edwards and Clinton of dishonesty by deflecting the ‘weak point’ question with answers that appear as assets…
It appears that Obama has never actually applied for a job that required being interviewed for the position. Anyone who actually has, knows that you DON’T tell your prospective boss things like, “I used to be indecisive but now I’m not sure” or “I’d like to be better at time management, but I don’t have time, as I’m too busy brown-nosing by boss’s ass”. You always answer with an asset. That’s the real question you’re being asked, to see not only if, but more importantly how, you turn a negative question into an asset.

It’s a question about your positive attitude, not a probe into how fucked-up you’re honestly willing to admit you are. Don’t take my word for it; ask any career counselor.

Obama’s answer that he’s challenged by paperwork tells us, by way of the operative sub-word – work, that he thinks his “job” as president is to have ideas and opions (remind you of W.Bush?), and not have to actually DO any work. Delegation is certainly appropriate, but delegation itself is something that has to be worked at, and the delegator has to have the expertise and experience to know if the delegees are performing and producing results.

Of course any POTUS does not single-handedly manage the whole operation. But their job IS to have the skill to manage the managers.

I’m not convinced at all that Obama has a clue in this area.

I’m sick and fed up with lame brains who think their purpose in life is to have epiphany thoughts of brilliant vision, while others take care of business. You know, like ‘decider’ guy.

First there was Reagan, then W.Bush, then Governator Arnold; now we have the latest rising star of the ‘Who wants to be POTUS’ reality show, Mr. Obama.

Whatever happened to professional skill?

A victim of 1980′s corporate republicanism, mediocrity in all it’s rainbow glory.

It became about image, as opposed to talent, government run by PR firm, as opposed to empathetic intellectual or artistic brilliance.

And it culminated with the George Bush, and the devastating loss in Iraq his administration caged.

So, time to bring back real talent, and real brains. The spinners don’t even spin well, anymore, it’s like a hollow paper cone, trying to hide behind a mound of translucent cotton candy.

No taste, messy, an absolute inability to judge the quality of it’s own work, accepting of average mediocrity, and certainly not able to run a leading world government.

It isn’t only about marginal business skill(hey Mitt!), it’s about understanding and maintaining the AMERICAN system of democracy, successfully, while also leading the nation to prosperity, and security.

That ain’t Obama Bush.

(Isnt he a Saudi relative?)

And ask Mitt Romney what America means to him: support our troops? less taxes? another day in paradise? what ever his simplistic sloganeer can think up?

heh.

“And ask Mitt Romney what America means to him”

I don’t think he knows the difference between personal career success and leadership to nation success for the good of the nation. It’s all for the greater glory of career opportunity for Mittens.

Also, on a basic level, I don’t trust anyone who does animal abuse. Note that law enforcement pros view it as a key predictor of a tendency for criminal behaviour. Once again, another Bush trait (fire crackers up frog’s asses).

Interesting that the same people who insist Barack Obama isn’t battle-hardened enough to be the nominee, and that his supporters are too thin-skinned to take any criticism of him, now shriek that so much as MENTIONING another candidate in anything other than a completely positive context is some horrible breach of campaign etiquette.

I’m starting to think that the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome” needs to be coined here.

completely positive context
OK, Then respectfully, name some. I am all eyes. Help me to see what it is that has so many “inspired”.

Name some what? What are you talking about?

Most of us see in Obama another Bush, pushed by the same people that pushed Bush.

Given that, Obama’s empty platform, and his use of Rove’s tactics, it would seem, based on republican election pattern, Obama is being set up to lose, Obama is the one they can beat, or if he does gain the Presidency, he will function as a puppet, again, for the same people, (usually very wealthy coporate scions, and such) who put Bush there.

In which case, no real progress for the PEOPLE of America will be made, it will be more of the same.

This time, too much is at stake, given Iraq and the economy. Obama doest go in with a budget surplus.

But, you never know what the good Lord has in store.

Be careful what you wish for…

MENTIONING another candidate;Barack Obama isn’t battle-hardened

Wow, talk about taking something out of context! I find it frightening that you would do something like this SusanUnPC. What are you doing? Seriously, I like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, but to take something completely out of context like that is deplorable! Is it your allegiance to Senator Clinton or your obvious disdain for Senator Obama? Can you distinguish the two? It’s is unbelievable to me that a fellow Dem can stoop this low.